PCN from NCP - company car - wrong reg used to pay

UpITA

I would like to take your opinion on my situation:
- A company car - NCP car park
- It was a new car. I used the app to pay for parking, but I mistakenly used my old car registration number that was saved on the app.
- I received the PCN- I think that the car park company contacted my fleet management company and they gave them my information.
[at that point, I had no idea about this forum and the detailed guidance on how to deal with these PCNs]
- I made an appeal on NCP's online system and I explained the situation and sent them a screenshot of the payment receipt. If I remember correctly, as part of the online appeal process, I had to give a confirmation that I was the driver.
- My appeal was not accepted, but they decided to reduce the charge, and I have to pay only the admin fee (I think it was around £20). In retrospect, I'm not sure if I should've just accepted this outcome and paid the £20, but I thought that they were very unreasonable since I have actually paid, and I thought that POPLA would be fairer. So I appealed, and again it was not successful, and I was asked to pay the full PCN amount.
- At this stage, I thought that I had no other option but to pay. I tried to look up the PCN again on the system so I can pay the charge, but it disappeared. I tried several times on different days. So I just ignored it.
- After a while, I started receiving letters from Trace debt collectors.
[This is when I came across the guidance here. I decided to follow the guidance and didn't respond or call them
- I understand that I should respond when I receive a "letter before claim" or similar. Below is the most recent letter I received.
These are my questions:
1- Is this considered the "letter before claim"? It's from the debt collector, so I assume not.
2- Would I have a chance if they actually make a claim? Or should I just pay now to avoid extra charges?

Coupon-mad

Ignore Trace.

They are using a CCJ as a frightener, in a completely misleading way and out of context. You can't just "get a CCJ" but their letter makes it look that way.

See post 4 of the NEWBIES thread for pictures of the £170 threatogram letters to ignore, and then see post 2 of the NEWBIES thread for what not to ignore.

You'll never pay this so stop trying!

UpITA

I received the claim form. NCP is represented by Moorside. I have already acknowledged the claim on MCOL. I'm now preparing the defence. I saw comments elsewhere that Moorside doen't provide enough details on the claim, and there is a specific template paragraph for this. Can someone please check the particulars of claim here and advise whether this is considered sufficient?

As mentioned above, I actually paid for parking, but I had the wrong reg entered in the phone app.

Appreciate your help!!

Coupon-mad

OK, so you have a Claim form which does specify the alleged breach.

Therefore, use the Template Defence linked in post 2 of the NEWBIES FAQS pinned announcement thread. See my signature for how to navigate straight there.

What's the Issue Date of this Claim?

James_Poisson

That POC states "parked without payment of the parking charge" but you proved that you did pay it, which they actually accepted because they tried the admin fee route instead, Dimwits!

Le_Kirk

If you tell us the date of issue of the claim form, we can give you the deadline for the submission of your defence.

Castle

There's a password still shown on the claim form.

UpITA

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922368#Comment_81922368

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922559#Comment_81922559

it’s 04 Mar 2026

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 04/03/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 09/03/26 and before or on 23/03/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 07/04/26

UpITA

I prepared the defence. I had an initial draft which was later polished by AI. I would appreciate the experts' feedback:

1- The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety.

2- It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of vehicle XYZ at XYZ car park on dd/mm/2025. The allegation that the vehicle was “parked without payment” is denied.

3- The Defendant paid the parking tariff using the Claimant’s phone application. The issue arose solely because the application retained an old vehicle registration number, which was inadvertently selected. Payment was nonetheless made for the parking event.

4- On aa/bb/2025 the Defendant appealed, explaining the keying error and providing proof of payment. On aa/bb/2025 the Claimant acknowledged both the payment and the keying error, yet declined to cancel the charge. The Defendant denied any liability beyond the tariff already paid.

5- Following the Defendant’s initial appeal, the Claimant acknowledged that payment had been made and reduced the charge to £20 described as an administration fee. Having accepted that position, the Claimant’s subsequent pursuit of a claim pleaded as non‑payment and inflated to £170 is inconsistent, unsupported, and unreasonable.

6- Following rejection of the POPLA appeal, the Defendant attempted to pay via the Claimant’s online system but received repeated error messages stating that the ticket could not be found. The Claimant thereby rendered payment impossible and cannot rely on alleged non‑payment where its own systems prevented payment.

7- The Particulars of Claim are inadequately particularised, fail to identify any contractual entitlement to the sum of £170, and disclose no lawful basis for the additional sums claimed. The Defendant denies that any amount beyond the original parking charge is recoverable and avers that the claim is inflated and an abuse of process.

8- Accordingly, the claim is denied in full. The Defendant seeks dismissal of the claim and, in the event of unreasonable conduct, costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

UpITA

AI created an initial long defence that I don't think would fit into MCOL. I'm just posting it here in case it has anything useful to be added to the more concise version above.

1- The Defendant is a litigant in person. Save as expressly admitted below, the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) and puts the Claimant to strict proof.

 

A. Inadequate Particulars of Claim

1- The PoC are inadequately particularised and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. In particular, the PoC do not plead:

a. the specific contractual terms relied upon;

b. the wording, location, or prominence of the signage alleged to form the contract;

c. how the sum of £170 is calculated or contractually due;

d. any explanation for the additional sums claimed beyond the original parking charge; or

e. a Parking Charge Notice reference number.

2- In the absence of these essential particulars, the Defendant is unable to properly understand or plead to the Claimant’s case. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of its cause of action.

 

B. Admissions and Background

1- It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration XYZ and that the vehicle was present at XYZ car park, Town POSTCODE on dd/mm/2025.

2- The Defendant denies the Claimant’s allegation that the vehicle was “parked without payment of the parking charge”.

3- The Defendant paid the parking tariff for the material period using the Claimant’s phone application. The issue arose solely because the application retained an old vehicle registration number, which was inadvertently selected. Payment was nonetheless made for the parking event.

4- On d Mmm 2025, the Defendant appealed to the Claimant, explaining the keying error and providing proof of payment. On dd Mmm 2025, the Claimant acknowledged both the payment and the keying error. Despite this, the Claimant declined to cancel the charge and instead purported to “reduce” it. The Defendant denied any liability beyond the tariff already paid.

5- Following rejection of the Defendant’s POPLA appeal, the Defendant made multiple attempts to pay the charge via the Claimant’s online portal. Each attempt resulted in an error message stating:

“Sorry, we cannot find this ticket – please check the details you have provided are correct.”

The Defendant has time‑stamped screenshots and screen recordings evidencing these failed attempts.

The Claimant thereby rendered payment impossible. A party cannot rely on alleged non‑payment where its own systems prevent payment, yet the Claimant nonetheless continued enforcement and litigation. This conduct is unreasonable and further supports dismissal of the claim.

 

C. No Breach as Pleaded

1- The sole breach pleaded by the Claimant is that the vehicle was “parked without payment of the parking charge”. This allegation is factually incorrect.

2- Payment was made for the parking event. The Claimant has expressly acknowledged both the payment and the keying error. Accordingly, the fundamental factual basis of the claim is false and the claim must fail.

 

D. BPA Code of Practice and Keying Errors

1- The Claimant, National Car Parks Limited, is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is bound by the BPA Code of Practice and associated POPLA guidance as a condition of its DVLA data access and enforcement activities.

2- The BPA has issued clear guidance regarding keying errors where a motorist has paid for parking. Where payment is evidenced, operators are required to cancel the Parking Charge Notice in certain circumstances, and in others to limit any charge to a nominal administration sum only.

3- In this case, the Defendant paid the parking tariff and provided proof of payment. The Claimant acknowledged both the payment and the keying error. By pursuing a claim pleaded as “parked without payment” despite this acknowledgement, the Claimant has acted contrary to the BPA Code of Practice and its own trade body’s published guidance.

4- Such conduct is unreasonable and renders the claim without merit.

 

E. Inflated and Unrecoverable Additional Sums

1- The Defendant understands that the original Parking Charge was stated as £100 and was later reduced to £20 following the Claimant’s acknowledgement of payment and keying error. Notwithstanding this, the Claimant now seeks £170.

2- The Claimant has pleaded no contractual entitlement to any additional sum and has provided no breakdown or explanation for the increase. The Defendant denies that any sum in excess of the original parking charge is recoverable and avers that the additional amount represents an attempt at double recovery and an abuse of the small claims process.

 

F. Driver / Keeper Liability and POFA

1- The PoC plead liability as “driver and/or keeper” and/or pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

2- The Defendant has admitted being the driver. Accordingly, any reliance on POFA keeper liability is unnecessary and misconceived. In any event, the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with POFA should it seek to rely upon it.

 

G. Interest

1- The Claimant claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. The Defendant avers that such interest is discretionary, is not recoverable on sums not properly owed, and should not be used to inflate an already disputed and inadequately particularised claim.

 

H. Conclusion

1- For the reasons set out above, the Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and invites the Court to dismiss it.

2- The Defendant seeks the Court’s consideration of costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) in the event that the Court finds the Claimant has acted unreasonably, including but not limited to:

a. pursuing a claim pleaded as non‑payment despite acknowledging that payment was made;

b. acting contrary to the BPA Code of Practice; and

c. advancing an inflated and inadequately particularised claim.